Andrews Uniuersity Seminary Studies, Season 1988, Vol. 26, No. 3,253-265
Copyright 0 1988 by Andrews University Press.
MARTIN LUTHER AND HIS THEOLOGY
IN GERMAN CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION
BEFORE AND AFTER VATICAN I1
JOHANN HEINZ
Seminar Marienhohe
D-6100 Darmstadt, Federal Republic of Germany
Recent Roman Catholic research has produced a series of outstanding works on Luther's life and theology. During the second
half of the nineteenth and first half of the present century, the
serious scientific work was for the most part done by Lutherans and
other Protestants, with names such as Theodosius Harnack, Adolf
von Harnack, Karl Holl, Paul Althaus, Heinrich Bornkamm, W.
von Loewenich, R. Hermann, and H. J. Iwand being well known.'
Why, then, has the more fair and serious Catholic interpretation of
Luther arisen only so recently?
1. T h e Basis and Course of Earlier Catholic Interpretation
Cochlaeus' Znf h e n c e
An answer to this question of why the more scientific and
accurate Catholic depiction of Luther is so recent was well stated at
the time of World War I1 by Catholic scholar Adolf Herte in a
three-volume work, Das katholische Lutherbild i m Bann der Lutherkommentare des Cochlaeus. His clear and, for many Catholics,
embarrassing answer was this: Catholic Luther interpretation for
the previous 400 years had more or less repeated what Johannes
Cochlaeus, a contemporary of Luther, set forth in his extremely
negative Commentaria de actis et scriptis M. Lutheri.2 Cochlaeus'
writings were basically nothing but fiction, calumny, and lies. In
the rude style of that time, Cochlaeus depicted Luther as a monster,
a demagogue, a revolutionary, a drunkard, and a violator of nuns.3
'See Ernst-Heinz Amberg, "Luther in der Theologie des 20. Jahrhunderts,"
T L Z 108 (1983):802-815.
2An edition has been published in Miinster by W. Aschendorff in 1943.
3Theodor Kolde, "Cochlaeus," Realencyclopadie fiir protestantische Theologie
u n d Kirche, ed. D. Albert Hauck, 3d ed., rev. and enl., 22 vols. (Leipzig, 1898),
4: 194-200.
254
JOHANNHEINZ
This same style continued during the following centuries. The
Jesuits in their jubilee book of 1640, Imago primi saeculi societatis
Jesu, called Luther the "blemish of Germany," the "filthy wretch
of Epicurus," and the "corruptor of E ~ r o p e . "Although
~
the expressions became softer during the following centuries, the biographical and theological standpoint remained mainly polemical.
Johann Mohler
Johann Adam Mohler, the prominent theologian and historian
of the Catholic Tiibingen school in the early nineteenth century,
admitted that Luther's feelings were sound and healthy, i.e. Luther
was not a decadent man; but he contended that Luther's doctrine of
justification caused a misunderstanding of ethics of which the
Reformer himself was unfortunately unaware. Indeed, Luther's
entire doctrine was nothing else than the renewal of Gnosti~ism.~
Ignax Do1 1inger
In the middle of the nineteenth century, Ignaz Dollinger, one
of Catholicism's most famous church historians, who later broke
with his church after the dogma of papal infallibility had been
proclaimed, wrote a three-volume work entitled Die Reformation.
In it Dollinger attempted to apply Leopold von Ranke's principles
of modern historiography to church history, but his outcome was
just the reverse, for again the treatment took the form of polemics.
Dollinger admitted that Luther was the most popular character
that Germany had ever possessed, but declared that the Protestant
Reformation, judged according to its fruits, was a "soul-murdering
heresy"6 which stifled every arousal of conscience by the illusion of
a false assurance of salvation.'
Johannes Janssen
At about the turn of the nineteenth to twentieth century this
same kind of problematical procedure reached its culmination in
"SeeWalter Beyna, Das moderne katholische Lutherbild (Essen, 1969), p. 13.
5J. A. Mohler, Symbolik, 6th ed. (Munich, 1895), pp. 242-245.
61. Dollinger, Kirche und Kirchen, Papsttum und Kirchenstaat, 2d ed. (Munich,
1861), p. 341.
71. Dollinger, Die Reformation, 3 vols. (Reprint ed.; Frankfurt a. M., 1962) 3: 43.
LUTHER IN GERMAN CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION
255
three authors: Johannes Janssen, Heinrich Denifle, and Hartmann
Grisar. Janssen, a historian who later became a Catholic priest,
wrote a work entitled Geschichte des deutschen Volkes seit dem
Ausgang des Mittelalters, in which he glorified the Middle Ages
and devalued the era of the Reformation. For him, Luther was a
sick soul with inferior character.8
Heinrich Denifle and Hartmann Grisar
The rudest attack, however, came from Denifle, a Dominican
monk and renowned specialist in the study of the Middle Ages. In
1904, his book entitled Luther und Luthertum appeared. In it he
depicted Luther as a moral miscreant who had invented the doctrine of justification to excuse his own immoral life.g He accused
the Reformer of being guilty of a "damned half-knowledge" lo and
of a "philosophy of the flesh," l1 and he called Luther's doctrine a
"seminar of sins and vices." l2 In several passages he chose the form
of personal address to Luther, exclaiming, for example, "Luther,
in you there is nothing divine!" l3
A more subtle, but in its effect no less offensive, approach was
used by Jesuit priest Grisar, Professor of Church History in Innsbruck, whose book entitled Luther appeared in 1911. Ostensibly,
Grisar gave the impression of being fair and objective, but into his
supposedly neutral statements he skillfully mingled subtle insinuations about Luther's immorality, abnormality, and haughtiness.14
The Catholic philosopher Johannes Hessen has evaluated the
methods of Denifle and Grisar as follows: "One may doubt which
of the two methods of killing Luther was the most pleasant: The
rude, but open, way of the Dominican . . . or the cunning method
of the Jesuit. . . . There is no doubt that both methods are failures." l5
%ee Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther im S@iegel der deutschen Geistesgeschichte
(Heidelberg, 1955), pp. 261 -264.
9H. Denifle, Luther und Luthertum, 2d ed. (Mainz, 1904), 1: 605.
1°Ibid.,pp. 666, 681.
llIbid., p. 787.
121bid.,p. 799.
131bid.,p. 797.
14SeeBornkamm, pp. 335-340.
15Seeibid., p. 107.
JOHANN HEINZ
2. Beginnings of a New Approach
Just before and during World War I1 a turning point was
reached in Catholic Luther study in that a change for a fairer and
more objective evaluation of Luther began to develop. This was the
beginning of the new Catholic Luther interpretation that has caused
a sensation in the religious world of today.
Joseph Lortz
The new stance can be traced back especially to the work of
Joseph Lortz, who in 1939 wrote a two-volume work entitled Die
Reformation i n Deutschland (Eng., T h e Reformation in Germany).
The publication has become a best-seller, with tremendous echo in
the Catholic as well as in the Protestant theological and historical
milieu. In fact, Lortz's volumes have been compared with von
Ranke's classic work in the nineteenth century, Deutsche Geschichte
i m Zeitalter der Reformation.
Lortz tried seriously to understand Luther and the Reformation. In one stroke he abandoned, once and for all, the polemical
approach, denying, for example, the legend of Luther's immorality.
Lortz declares that "Luther was not motivated by low inclinations
and desires when he broke with the church. . . this ought to be
understood by everyone." l6 The Reformation was inevitable, Lortz
suggests, with the Catholic Church having been guilty of corrupting the life and thought of medieval Christianity."
But, says Lortz, Luther did not fight real Catholicism. Catholicism as Luther understood it was the prevailing Scholasticism of
the late Middle Ages, the so-called c'Occamism" in which Luther
had been brought up-a position the Reformer finally rejected as a
new kind of Pelagianism because theologians such as William of
Occam and Gabriel Biel had made man's will and work precede
God's grace according to the famous sentence, "Si homo facit,
quod in se est, deus dat ei gratiam." l 8 Thus Luther, who probably
was not very well acquainted with High Scholasticism and especially not with Thomas Aquinas, fought only a decadent form of
'65.
Lortz, Die Reformation i n Deutschland, 4th
1: 192.
l7Ibid., pp. 10-12.
181bid.,p. 176.
ed. (Freiburg i. Br., 1962),
LUTHER IN GERMAN CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION
257
Catholic theology, while the real Catholicism (which was mainly
Thomism) remained untouched.19
Lortz clearly points out in his Reformation in Deutschland
that Luther was no modern subjectivist (subjectivism was rather
anticipated by Erasmus), but rather a Christ-centered thinker with
enormous and deep strength of faith, influencing generations of
Christians; if it were not so, Protestant Christianity would have
disappeared a long time ago.20In a letter to some German soldiers
during World War 11, Lortz was even more positive, stating that
Luther was a man of secular significance, an inexhaustible ocean of
religious strength. He was a real "homo religiosus," not a shallow
kind of Christian, but a confessor of "theologia crucis." He was an
evangelist of Jesus Christ and of Christ's gospel of redemption and
grace. Luther's earnestness as a monk, his love for the Scriptures,
his belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, his life of
prayer and piety-all of these point to the "homo catholicus" in
this "heretic." 21
It is interesting to notice that Lortz still considered Luther a
"heretic. " He explained Luther psychologically: In spite of Luther's
many wonderful sides, Luther was an "Erregungstyp" ("emotional
characterV).22Luther formed his theology out of his own experience
and therefore was unable to integrate other theological aspects
which were contrary to his inner life and thoughts.
J o hannes Hessen
Because of Lortz's attempt at a psychological explanation of
Luther, the Catholic philosopher Johannes Hessen, in a booklet
entitled Luther i n katholischer Sicht (1st ed., 1947; 2d ed., 1949),
criticized Lortz. Hessen has pointed out that Lortz's psychological
explanation is unsatisfying-that the difference between Catholicism and Luther is not a psychological one, but a theological one.
Luther had a real and justified theological burden. Thus, Hessen
lgIbid., p. 170. If this is so, a twentieth-century Protestant-Catholic encounter
on the reformational issues should probably be easier than it has seemed to be in
former times.
Z0Ibid.,pp. 400-402.
Z1Citedby Johannes Hessen, Luther in katholischer Sicht, 2d ed. (Bonn, 1949),
p. 16.
ZZLortz, Reformation, 1:162.
258
JOHANN HEINZ
has given one of the most enthusiastic Catholic appreciations of
Luther that appeared before Vatican 11. Luther, to Hessen, was a
real "reformer, a restorer," whose only mistake was that he was
If Luther somemore earnest and deep than his ~ontemporaries.2~
times exaggerated, this was because of his prophetic mission, for
the prophet must fight any kind of deformation with all the means
at his disposal. Luther only fulfilled a historical law. (Towards the
end of his life, Lortz too had begun to appreciate Luther more and
more as a "prophet," a "theologian of high rank," and a "mighty
spiritual power," whose "riches must be gathered into the Catholic
Church."24 On Luther's main point-i.e., the doctrine of justification- Catholics can agree with the Reformer.25)
Erwin Iserloh
Lortz's work is presently being continued by his one-time
student Erwin Iserloh, who achieved prominence in 1961 through
an article on Luther's "95 T h e ~ e s . "Iserloh
~~
has also written the
articles on Luther and the German Reformation in the fourth
volume of the Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte (2d ed., 1979),
edited by Hubert Jedin.
According to Iserloh, Luther was a "Behaupter" ("maintainer"); in the Reformer's theology there was no room for compromises, but only for confession. This confession proceeded from
the truly religious experience of the Majesty of God, on the one
hand, and man's sinfulness, on the other hand.27 But like his
master Lortz, Iserloh affirms that Luther mixed up Late Scholasticism with Catholicism, thus fighting a deviation instead of the real
phenomenon.28
235. Hessen, Luther in katholischer Sicht, 1st ed. (Bonn, 1947),p. 18.
245. Lortz, "M. Luther. Grundziige seiner geistigen Struktur," in Reformata
Reformanda, ed. E. Iserloh and K. Repgen, 2 vols. (Miinster/W., 1965), 1: 220,
221, 218.
25Ibid., p. 244.
26E. Iserloh, "Luthers Thesenanschlag-Tatsache oder Legende?" TThZ 70
(1961): 303-312. Iserloh tried to prove that Luther had not actually posted those
theses on the door of Wittenberg's "Schlosskirche. "
27E. Iserloh, "Martin Luther und der Aufbruch der Reformation (1517-25)'" in
Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, ed. Hubert Jedin, 7 vols. (Freiburg i. Br., 196279), 4: 15, 17.
Z8Ibid., p. 41.
LUTHER I N GERMAN CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION
259
Summary
The foregoing studies on Luther's life and person were surely
profitable because they brought a change in Catholic thinking
about Luther. But those historical studies had their limitations
inasmuch as they did not include Luther's theology.
Certain Protestants in the recent past have produced some fine
works on Luther's theology. These include Paul Althaus, Die
Theologie Martin Luthers (1961);Gerhard Ebeling, Luther. Einfuhru n g i n sein Denken (1964); Rudolf Hermann, Luthers Theologie
(1967); and Friedrich Gogarten, Luthers Theologie (1967). Thus far
there is, however, no general presentation of Luther's theology in
Catholic research, with perhaps the exception of Otto Hermann
Pesch's Hinfiihrung zu Luther (1982) that will be mentioned later.
This is a kind of introduction to Luther's theology. Nevertheless,
the 1960s have produced some interesting works on special features
in this field. For example, a rather complete picture of Catholic
interpretation of both the person and the theology of Luther has
been given by Werner Beyna, Das moderne katholische Lutherbild
(1969). This has brought us, of course, to the time of Vatican I1 and
thereafter.
3. T h e Most Recent Catholic Appraisals
The present situation is characterized by an inner-Catholic tension between the older "historical" school (J. Lortz, H. Jedin,
E. Iserloh, P. Manns) and the more recent "systematical" school
(A. Brandenburg, H. Kiing, St. Pfiirtner, H. Fries, 0.H. Pesch).
The "systematicians" criticize the historical school on three points:
(1) The historians proceed from the standpoint that Catholic dogma
is not to be disputed; (2) they see a Catholic irreconcilability with
Luther's doctrine of God's sovereign action in salvation, an action
that excludes cooperation on the part of the recipient; and (3) they
are not ready (with the exception of Hessen) to learn anything from
Luther. This threefold criticism has been set forth by the most
outstanding representative of the new approach, the former Dominican monk Pesch, already mentioned earlier for his incorporation of
a broad theological perspective in his treatment of Luther.29 T o a
certain extent, this new doctrinal dialogue began in 1957 with
29See Peter Manns, Lutherforschung Heute (Wiesbaden, 1967), p. 10.
260
JOHANN HEINZ
Hans Kung's famous book Rechtfertigung, a dialogue between
Karl Barth and Catholicism. But because Luther's doctrine was not
addressed directly by Kung, the new school considers its beginning
to be with Albert Brandenburg's Gericht und Euangelium in 1960.
Albert Brandenburg
According to Brandenburg, who seems to have been very deeply
influenced by Gerhard Ebeling's existen tialis t Luther interpretation, Luther's theology is mainly a new hermeneutic. The initial
notion in Luther is the "Deus absconditus"; the second notion is
the judgment concept; and the culmination appears in the concept
of faith, faith being the basic form of existence (with the historical
event thus being secondary and personal engagement primary in
importance).30 It is because of this existentialist character of Luther's
theology, Brandenburg declares, that the Reformer is a "Lutherus
praesens" for all Christianss1-an interpretation that has not found
unanimous agreement. But Brandenburg insists on the Catholic
integration of Luther's theology. In Die Zukunft des Martin Luther
(1977) he calls the Reformer the "first evangelical theologian in the
Church," a person who must get "his deserved place in the Church"
and from whom alone Catholicism and Protestantism can expect a
"renewal of Christianity. " 32
Stephan Pfiirtner
In 1961 Stephan Pfurtner published a booklet entitled Luther
und T h o m a s i m Gesprach (Eng., Luther and Aquinas: A Conversat i o n ) in which he deals with the special aspect of the assurance of
salvation in Thomas Aquinas and in Luther. For him, Luther's
"fides actualis" corresponds to the Catholic "fides caritate formata. " 33 He doubts the Council of Trent's theological understanding
of Luther's assurance of salvation; therefore it is possible to maintain that Luther was not condemned by that C0uncil.3~Though
Aquinas rejects an assurance of grace,35he teaches an assurance of
SoseeBeyna, p. 193.
31A.Brandenburg, Die Zukunft des Martin Luther (Miinster/W., 1977), p. 42.
321bid.,pp. 41, 65, 81.
33S.Pfiirtner, Luther and Aquinas: A Conversation, trans. E. Quinn (London,
1964), p. 40.
341bid.,p. 31.
351bid.,p. 37.
LUTHER IN GERMAN CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION
26 1
hope;36 and both Aquinas and Luther refute the un-Christian
"securitas" assurance-Luther by faith, and Aquinas by hope. This
consideration could serve as foundational in the search for "a
synthesis of an understanding of faith"-a synthesis that one day
could even be realized.37
Otto Hermann Pesch
The most complete and thorough work on the subject of
Aquinas and Luther, however, is a book of nearly 1000 pages by
Pesch, Professor of Ecumenical Theology at the Protestant Theological Faculty in Hamburg: Theologie der Rechtfertigung bei M.
Luther und Thomas von Aquin, published first in 1967 and reprinted in 1985. Pesch believes that there are only formal differences,
no substantial ones, between the two theologians. Luther's theology
~ ~ they do not differ in
is existential, Thomas's is ~ a p i e n t a l ;but
their main points of justification, and therefore there is no reason
for condemning one or the other." Pesch further points out that
the polemics between Protestants and Catholics for 500 years has
perhaps been only a big misunderstanding.40
In 1967 a smaller work by Pesch also appeared: Die Rechtfertigungslehre Luthers in katholischer Sicht. In it Pesch has elaborated six points of importance in Luther's doctrine of justification:
(1) The Law and the Gospel; (2) simul justus et peccator; (3) justitia
aliena ("external justice"); (4) sola fide numquam sola ("faith
justifies alone, but does not remain alone"); (5) the assurance of
salvation; and (6) God's sole agency and man's non-free will.
Pesch's treatment of the six points is as follows: He admits
that Catholic theology has failed to accept the antithesis between
the Law and the Gospel, but is not troubled in this regard, because
modern man does not experience sin through the Law, but rather
through existential need. In this respect, both Catholics and Protestants are in the same b0at.4~The formula "simul justus et peccator,"
361bid.,p. 41.
371bid.,p. 113.
380.
H. Pesch, Theologie der Rechtfertigung bei Martin Luther und Thomas
von Aquin (Darmstadt, 1985), pp. 937-938.
3gIbid.,p. 950.
401bid.,p. 951.
H. Pesch, Die Rechtfertigungslehre Luthers in katho2ischer Sicht (Berlin,
1967), p. 53.
262
JOHANN HEINZ
already treated by Grosche, Koster, and Rahner, can also be integrated into Catholic theology. Sin as sensuality in the human mind
is more than the "fomes peccati," the latent possibility of sin in
case of temptation. Sin is a dynamic power in man; therefore
Catholics can also speak of a total depravity of human faculties.
However, Pesch admits that the concept of the Council of Trent,
the concept of inherent grace, is incompatible with man's being
permanently in ~ i n . ~ 2
In order to overcome Luther's opposition to the Catholic concept of grace as an ontological quality, Pesch calls attention to the
fact that only the nonbinding Catechismus Romanus speaks of
"divina qualitas in anima," while the Council of Trent only mentioned grace as being inherent in man.43 Pesch is very open to
Luther's accentuation of good works and agrees with Rudolf Hermann that the Reformer fought simply against the possibility of a
presentation of man's works before God-a view that is also a
perfectly genuine Catholic attitude.44Perhaps Catholics can even
agree with Luther's assurance of salvation. The fact that Luther
distinguished between "certi tudo" and "securi tas, " maintaining
assurance on the condition of faith for the present moment of faith
and refuting assurance of eschatological accomplishment, could be,
according to Pesch, the basis for a dialogue. Assurance of hope in
Aquinas is, at any rate, very near to Luther's view. Against Luther's
assertion of non-free will, Pesch points out that Catholic theology
is more capable of explaining man's responsibility v i s - h i s ~ i n . ~ 5
In four points Pesch in 1967 still saw differences that had not
yet been resolved. These may be listed as follows:46
Luther
Catholicism
Forensic justification
Sola fide
Grace as a relationship
The Word of God as the
main vehicle of grace
Effective justification
Fides caritata f o n a t a
Grace as a quality
The sacraments as the
main vehicle of grace
However, in more recent publications-Mysterium salutis
(1973), and Gerechtfertigt aus Glauben. Luthers Fragen an die
LUTHER IN GERMAN CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION
263
Kirche ( 1982)-Pesch expresses his firm conviction that the doctrine
of justification according to the present understanding of many
Lutheran and Catholic theologians "does not separate the churches
any more."47 Indeed, it is possible to say, "United in the doctrine
of justification? We confidently affirm: 'Yes!' "48
August Hasler
Another most interesting work, Luther in der katholischen
Dogmatik, was published by the Swiss theologian August Hasler
in 1968. In it, Hasler reports his investigation of the most prominent Catholic dogmatic textbooks of earlier times and of the present
day (more than thirty titles) in order to ascertain how correctly
their authors have interpreted Luther's theology. The outcome was
disappointing. With the exception of Michael Schmaus, the wellknown dogmatist in Munich, all of the other Catholic spokesmen
showed only a limited acquaintance with Luther's theology. They
often misunderstood him, and they usually quoted him according
to secondary sources, seldom according to the Weimar Edition.
Hasler then analyzes the main features of Luther's thought, proposing to find a common terminology in order to arrive at common
beliefs. However, he admits that even with this being done, there
will still be differences of understanding between Catholicism and
Lutheranism.49
Peter Manns
Especially has the Luther commemoration of 1983 produced
some new Catholic works on Luther's life and theology. Peter
Manns, one of the most famous spokesmen of the Lortz school,
produced, for instance, an illustrated biography in which he rigorously refutes the idea of any pathological trait in Luther's character
and maintains the normality of Luther's monastic crisis and the
profound theological character of the Ref0rmation.5~
Interestingly enough, Manns considers Luther's teachings on
"pure love," or love as the fulfillment of the Law, as the Reformer's
4 7 0 . H. Pesch, Gerechtfertigt aus Glauben. Luthers Fragen an die Kirche
(Freiburg i. Br., 1982), p. 42.
4 8 0 . H. Pesch, "Gottes Gnadenhandeln als Rechtfertigung des Menschen," in
Mysterium salutis, ed. J. Feiner and M. Lohrer (Einsiedeln, 1973), 41'2: 913.
4 9 A . Hasler, Luther in der katholischen Dogmatik (Munich, 1968), p. 347.
50Peter Manns, Martin Luther (Freiburg i. Br., 1982), pp. 52, 82.
264
JOHANN HEINZ
central point.51This love points in two directions-love as the gift
and triumph of God's grace, on the one hand, and love as a
categorical refutation of antinomianism, on the other hand.52 Manns
closes his discussion with the following statement:
Whoever follows Luther, lives a good life and dies even
better, for at the end of the dark tunnel there is somebody who
loves us and about whom we can freely rejoice. This is Luther's
ecumenical testament, for which we should with modesty be
thankful.53
Alfred Liipple
Alfred Lapple, Professor of Practical Theology at the Catholic
Theological Faculty in Salzburg, has contributed to the Luther
commemoration of 1983 with a biography entitled Martin Luther.
Leben, Bilder, Dokumente. He views the Reformer as a Catholic
phenomenon, "coming out of the Catholic world'' and at the same
time "remaining in it until the end."54 Perhaps one has to be a
Catholic, he feels, in order really to understand Luther; indeed,
"Luther was much more Catholic than a Lutheran of today may
realize." 55
Lapple compares and contrasts Luther with Savonarola. Both
have much in common, but there is one significant difference:
Savonarola would have repudiated most of Luther's Reformation
program.56 Savonarola never abandoned the Roman Church, its
traditions, and its sacraments. Lapple stresses Savonarola's "unreduced Catholicism in its evangelical fullness,"57 thereby insinuating
that the Italian Dominican monk, not the German Augustinian,
was the real reformer.
Pesch's Hinfuhrung xu Luther gives a far better insight into
Luther's concerns than does Lapple, by indicating that Luther's
reformation was a "theological revolution,"5* a change in the
511bid.,pp. 83-84.
5*Ibid.
531bid., p. 220.
54A. Lapple, Martin Luther. Leben, Bilder, Dokumente (Munich, 1982)' p.
551bid.
561bid.,p. 130.
571bid., p. 132.
580.H. Pesch, Hinfuhrung zu Luther (Mainz, 1982), p. 39.
14.
LUTHER I N GERMAN CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION
265
course of the Church by a categorical return to the Scripturessomething that in the sixteenth century meant an inevitable break
with the Church, while today it means the possibility of enlarging
Catholic theology.59For Pesch, Luther was the "common teacher"
of both Protestants and catholic^.^^
4. Conclusion
We close this survey of German Catholic Luther research by
mention of a twofold conclusion set forth by Walter Kasper and
Hans Kung, followed by a final question concerning Luther and
Catholicism. Kasper and Kung have suggested that, on the one
hand, (1) the Catholic understanding of Luther's person and theology has made enormous progress in the last few decades, while
on the other hand, (2) the Catholic hierarchy has failed to keep in
step with this progress.61
The question then arises, Is the French theologian and Lortz
disciple Daniel Olivier correct when he says, "Catholicism did not
and does not want to have anything to do with Luther, because
Luther's Christianity is incompatible with the doctrine of Rome"?@
Or is Pesch right when he says, "In spite of some necessary criticism, Luther and his thought can today be perceived as another
possibility of theological thinking and Christian existence which
has its correct place in the Catholic C h ~ r c h " ? ~ 3
SgIbid., p. 46.
GOIbid., pp. 272-279.
61Walter Kasper and Hans Kung, "Verstandigung uber Luther?," Concilium.
Internationale Zeitschrift fur Theologie 12 (1976): 473 (hereinafter cited as Conc
(D))62Daniel Olivier, ''Warurn hat man Luther nicht verstanden? Katholische Antwort," Conc (D)12 (1976):477.
630.
H. Pesch, Ketzerfurst u n d Kirchenlehrer (Stuttgart, 1971), p. 42.